81–90 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? They formulate theories and test them against data to understand how the world works. Is that not the definition of science?
>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could scarcely call the field of Economics a science though.
Why? They formulate theories and test them against data to understand how the world works. Is that not the definition of science?
Economists aren't uncovering an underlying truth, they're basically building toy models. These toy models might approximate economic systems in a narrow range of controlled circumstances, but things rapidly deteriorate outside that range. The problem is that people assume the models reflect reality, and make bets based on that assumption.
It would be nice if economists focused on fully Bayesian models with Gaussian process priors and long tailed (ideally Levy alpha-stable with a low alpha bias) likelihood functions. At least then the uncertainty of their models would be absolutely clear, and black swan type events would be partially factored in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A minor blip where millions lost their jobs, houses, and businesses... The hard part about economic analysis is you can never know all the variables in a dynamic system. It's a common error to summarize based on variables convenient to the theme you choose to present only to later realize your analysis should have included some fairly obvious factors.
Yes millions lost their jobs, houses, and business. And yes it was a minor blip. If you think otherwise, you don't grasp how bad the Great Depression was. Think about 35% unemployment for years . The majority of mainstream economists didn't see it coming. That's a totally valid criticism. But they did a much better job of handling it than in 1929, and the damage, while major, was still nothing like the Great Depressi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you owe it to yourself to look up how the US defines a job. Most jobs created since 2008 are trmp jobs not actuallu structurally solid jobs so sure there is less unemployment but the employment there is is way more fragile.
The actual criticism is the US not counting people not actively looking for a job as unemployed, thus dismissing those who have given up/gone back to school/retired early/found their calling as a stay-at-home dad. Still: if you believe today's troubles are in any way comparable to the 20s, you owe it to yourself to read up on that period. Check for "starvation" in the index.
Because economics has always been utterly useless in any practical sense. It makes no testable predictions and is no more scientific than any theology. Only because it clothes its dogmas in symbolic notation is it accorded even the slightest bit of respect. The sooner we jettison it from our epistenic frames, the more quickly we will return to something that at least partially resembles sanity.
I believe that Economics should be a subset of Psychology. It mystifies me how Psych or Sociology classes arent required for a major. One would think that practitioners of a field essentially about human behavior would have insight into actual human behavior. And you would be wrong. Humans are replace by the mythical rational agent You are correct though. Economists are so proud of their elegant equations that they w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes millions lost their jobs, houses, and business. And yes it was a minor blip. If you think otherwise, you don't grasp how bad the Great Depression was. Think about 35% unemployment for years . The majority of mainstream economists didn't see it coming. That's a totally valid criticism. But they did a much better job of handling it than in 1929, and the damage, while major, was still nothing like the Great Depressi…
I see your 42 million unemployed people in 1929 and raise you 100 million people not currently looking for work in 2017.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes millions lost their jobs, houses, and business. And yes it was a minor blip. If you think otherwise, you don't grasp how bad the Great Depression was. Think about 35% unemployment for years . The majority of mainstream economists didn't see it coming. That's a totally valid criticism. But they did a much better job of handling it than in 1929, and the damage, while major, was still nothing like the Great Depressi…
I see your 42 million unemployed people in 1929 and raise you 100 million people not currently looking for work in 2017.
are "unemployed people" and "not currently looking for work" comparable measures, or where there man more people "not looking for work" in 1929? (most women, for example?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Sta... suggests that many of those 100million are relatively old or not interested in jobs even if jobs were on offer.
Because economics has always been utterly useless in any practical sense. It makes no testable predictions and is no more scientific than any theology. Only because it clothes its dogmas in symbolic notation is it accorded even the slightest bit of respect. The sooner we jettison it from our epistenic frames, the more quickly we will return to something that at least partially resembles sanity.
> It makes no testable predictions That's not true. There are, for example, GDP growth forecasts published by almost all central banks and many other institutions. They are pretty wrong, most of the time. But they are made, and falsifying them has been pretty easy in the past. There are many more theories in economics that are, in principle, testable and falsifiable. The problem is that it's difficult to run controll…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see your 42 million unemployed people in 1929 and raise you 100 million people not currently looking for work in 2017.
Don't just regurgitate Trump's tweets: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One could scarcely call the field of Economics a science though.
Why? They formulate theories and test them against data to understand how the world works. Is that not the definition of science?
No, in fact they don't. It's hard to believe, I know.
